BREXIT - Was it a good idea?

It may be ten years ago that we voted to leave the European Union, but the issue seems to be rearing its head again. Even the Washington Post ran a piece on it the other day, which has prompted a friend indirectly to ask me what I think about it all now - probably because I was known then to be a euro-sceptic Brexiteer. Also, our curious government seems to want to reverse it all, for reasons that certainly defy common sense (see below).

The big question in people’s minds now is: Was it a good idea?

My view then and now is, yes, definitely. Why? For one simple reason, to take control of our own affairs. Before we left, an amazingly large number of our new laws came from the EU and, under the EU treaties, once part of our law those laws couldn’t be changed. That is not Democracy.

I am incidentally surprised at the attitude of some Americans, who were and are critical of our decision. I ask myself how Americans would like most of their new laws to come, not from Congress, but from an organisation established by treaty between the US and, say, Canada, Mexico and, perhaps, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama.

As I say, my reason, then and now, is Democracy. As simple as that.

I’m not quite sure what the counter-argument is, for two reasons. The first is that the opposition to Brexit didn’t seem to address this point; they concentrated on putting the fear of God into us, saying that to leave the EU would in practical and economic terms be a disaster. Which worried me at the time, not being strong on those topics. Mercifully, it turned out not to be true.

The second is that there is actually a counter-argument, namely that the EU is democratic, which to a very limited extent is true. These new laws I refer to do have to pass through a kind of pseudo-democratic process. The laws get proposed by the Commission of the EU, composed of bureaucrats in Brussels (excellent people doubtless, but still bureaucrats, not elected politicians), and then approved, or of course in theory vetoed, by a Council of Ministers composed of politicians appointed by the EU member governments. Frankly, most of the laws proposed go through this process. The approval process is what I refer to, perhaps rudely, but I think realistically, as the pseudo-democratic element.

But there is another weakness to this counter-argument, which is perhaps the reason why those opposed to Brexit failed to deploy it. That is that once an EU law has been adopted, it can’t realistically be abolished. My definition of Democracy is a system whereby, if the public doesn’t like what its government does, or the laws it has caused to be adopted, they the public can “kick the bastards out” at the next election. The EU doesn’t allow for that.

As I say, now that ten years have gone by since the vote to leave took place, the issue seems to be raised again. Nothing that I have referred to has changed - obviously - Democracy is Democracy. But the new question is, Was it worth it? A question addressed, in exactly those terms, in a thoughtful and detailed article in last week’s Spectator (dated 20 June 2026), by Michael Gove.

In his article, he surprised me by his amazing list of the things that we, the UK, have been able to do, that we wouldn’t have been able to do had we still been part of the EU - including entering into trade deals with India and the United States. Interestingly, many of the things he refers to are actions proudly put through by the government of Keir Starmer - he apparently a convinced anti-Brexiteer. Michael Gove, deploying his great expertise on these matters, also deals with how we have avoided the “cataclysmic recession” forecasted all those years ago by the opponents of Brexit.

Before I sign off, I must touch on one extremely important point. There are many important areas where we have not taken the benefits of leaving, including the vastly important issue of border control. Many people on both sides of the argument thought that the vote went the way it did because of concerns, particularly among working class people, about immigration. Very little, if anything, has been done to address these concerns. The important thing to realise is that this hasn’t made leaving the EU a waste of time. The concerns are still there. And leaving the EU is still a condition precedent to dealing with them, even if our politicians have so far failed to grapple with the very significant additional problems of doing so.

A related but interesting question is why anyone brought up in democratic Britain can doubt the wisdom of leaving the EU with its “democratic deficit” to use the rather polite term used to describe what I have referred to. But it’s not a question I know the answer to, even though I do have thoughts on the subject.

The curious fact is that being against Brexit is one of the key “totemic” views espoused by most of those people who identify themselves as being on the (politically correct) centre-left. Even though, from a crudely political point of view, their position is contrary to the views of so many of what one would assume to be their natural working class constituents. A subject for another time . . .

Tony Herbert

27 June 2026